|
strykerpsg -> RE: Naval and Defense News (1/29/2018 2:33:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ExNusquam
quote:
ORIGINAL: strykerpsg
quote:
ORIGINAL: kevinkin
Yeah, the tail section seems awfully similar to a novices eye. I always have wondered what advantage that configuration imparts. Stability for the electronics array maybe.
Like most ideas not originated by that country, copy what seems to work. They have done so with the vast majority of their weapons, whether copying Russian, European or US. Why go out on a limb and make something different when the E-2D sets the current standard for quite a few navies.
It's not so much "copying" as "building something with identical requirements". Go compare the Quest Kodiak to the Cessna Caravan. There's some basics that you're going to end up with regardless of your design process.
The actual tail design comes from the fact that the E-2 is designed to do flat, skidding turns to keep the radar level and improve performance. With an AESA you could electronically level your scan volume, at the expense of power/accuracy (ESAs have a power fall-off as the beam gets further from array normal.
Fair enough, but there are very few original ideas coming out of China, never has, never will. Just cheaper to steal, copy or re=produce what other countries researched and developed. Every aspect of that airframe screams E-2D, even down to the windows and tail.
|
|
|
|
